What do you think of mueller's full, revised work now that he's oppenly supporting AGW

I think he doesn't have a model which correctly predicts current temperatures so it doesn't make sense for him to say he supports any alarmist position. I also support the criticisms of his work by his team member Judith Curry.

Time for me to ask you some questions.

i) Do you now concede that it hasn't got warmer for the last 15 years?

ii) Do you accept that current temperatures have been below the error bounds of the IPCC models on which the calls to action are based for some years ?

iii) Do you now concede that the climate refugees from sunken habitation never materialized and that the UN acted dishonestly in the way they simply removed the report making those predictions from their site ?

iv) Do you accept that Bill Nye is not a scientist ?

v) Do you accept that the parameter by which the AGW hypothesis can be verified or falsified is global average temperature (clue is in the name) ?

I don't accept that deviation from average mean temp is the only, or even the key, indicator of climate change. if Antarctica gets 10 degrees warmer and the san Joaquin gets 10 degrees colder, the fact that they average out doesn't make a ****.

Even if we're in a momentary "cold" spot of only .6 degrees above mean, realize that the threshold here is thought to be around 2 degrees. So we're measuring in tenths, and you're crowing that we're only at 30% of a disaster and holding steady. The ecosystem may be able to respond in a few hundred years, but that's awful fast evolving.

Further realize that the average temperature is unimportant if the peaks and valleys change regionally to our detriment.

If you really, really want to get into what is and isn't a scientist, what do you think you're going to find?

Do think more deniers or more AGW proponents are published and peer reviewed in a climate science field?

Oh, wait, everyone who disagrees with you is part of the "big science" conspiracy, I forgot for a minute.

You seem to be implying that the variants of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis supported by the IPCC don't actually make predictions about global mean temperatures. That is not the case.

No that's your strawman, I didn't imply anything, I asked you to clarify your understanding of how averages and differentials are actually calculated in dynamic system with so many variables, as you keep putting it. The answer is calculus.

You didn't do that, you gave me a binary answer of "yes", which is what I expected and immediately tried turned the table.

Not so fast. You made a statement above that calls your grasp of calculus into question, I pointed it out and you've tried to push it under the rug.

Originally Posted by Cullion

Now I want you to show me the model which actually predicted the current global average temperatures, or retract your statement.

No that's your strawman, I didn't imply anything, I asked you to clarify your understanding of how averages and differentials are actually calculated.

You didn't do that, you gave me a binary answer of "yes", which is what I expected and immediately turned the table.

Not so fast. You didn't actually ask me a mathematical question, you asked if I'd studied something, which I have. If you have a mathematical question, relevant to the subject at hand, I'm happy to go into the detail for you. What is the problem, relevant to Jonny's claim that 'climate change' (which he never defined) can occur without global mean warming, as a result of atmospheric CO2 concentration, that you would like me to answer ?

Retract what statement, that I don't think you are good at calculus?

I don't, based on your own comments. Sorry.

I do believe you're better at rhetoric than math.

You're still sore about me punking your own, and your favourite TV presenter's, claims to be a scientist I see.

You just tried to support Jonny's point that the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis doesn't actually require the planet to get warmer to still be true. Yes or no ?

Not so fast. You didn't actually ask me a mathematical question, you asked if I'd studied something, which I have. If you have a mathematical question, relevant to the subject at hand, I'm happy to go into the detail for you.

I do. Explain the calculus newb comment in your statement:

Originally Posted by Cullion

How would increasing CO2 cause climate change without increasing average global temperatures

Originally Posted by Cullion

You just tried to support Jonny's point that the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis doesn't actually require the planet to get warmer to still be true. Yes or no ?

Your binary style of questioning is not very scientific. I grew bored with it a long time ago and I just ignore them.

When you start using terms like "be true" and "yes or no" this feels like a Boolean logical or philosophical exercise, not a real discussion about climate change science.

You'd like that. You've injected your philosophical POV into the thread multiple times to support your argument.

That's what gave you away. If you'd have kept to the science, I could have viewed you more as skeptic than what I do, which is a stubborn fool.

There is no calculus' noobness there.
Yes, I'm aware that in other contexts a global average can be constant whilst there are local changes, and I'm also aware that the absolute value of a property like 'mean temperature' can lag a property said to drive it like 'atmospheric CO2 concentration', however:-

We're discussing models which predict increasing global average temperatures on the basis of CO2's greenhouse properties. These model's projections already claim to have factored in timing effects, and are published with error bounds. All of the other predicted changes to the climate thus far presented are said to arise from this increase in global average temperatures. No model has been presented which allows changes arising from local temperature changes under a constant global mean.

Your binary style of questioning is not very scientific.

When you start using terms like "be true" and "yes or no" this feels like a logical exercise, not a real discussion about climate change science.

That's because it is fundamentally a logical exercise, and after forcing him to consider the evidence for lack of warming for more than a decade (when he was initially skeptical of my sources), Jonny just asked me to consider that the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis doesn't actually have to result in global warming to be true, and I think that's pretty illogical.

You're simply refusing to acknowledge any falsification criteria for a hypothesis on the grounds of argument from authority and that you find the political narrative convincing, and that's wildly unscientific.

We're discussing models which predict increasing global average temperatures on the basis of CO2's greenhouse properties.

No. That's a grand simplification you are using, and why you keep forgetting that multivariate calculus (the actual mathematical science underlying everything we are discussing) involves integral summation over multiple variables.

It's not just CO2. CO2 is merely at the top of the list of greenhouse gasses/pollutants and other factors involved in the modeling, and CO2 proportion has grown over the last twenty years.

If you're going to logically "falsify" the entire working model for climate change because of the actions of one variable, you're a loon.

If you were Einstein, you'd have thrown out relativity the moment you saw infinity.